SỰ PHẢN ÁNH GIÁ TRỊ CÁ NHÂN VÀ GIÁ TRỊ CỘNG ĐỒNG TRONG GIAO TIẾP NÓI TIẾNG ANH MỸ VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT

The values of individualism and collectivism have been proved to exertprofound effects on many aspects of life respectively in America and Vietnam, amongwhich is the two groups of people

The values of individualism and collectivism have been proved to exertprofound effects on many aspects of life respectively in America and Vietnam, amongwhich is the two groups of people’s verbal communication styles However, it seemsthat this interesting topic has yet to be widely explored

By employing the questionnaires to collect data from 40 European Americanand Vietnamese informants, the study demonstrates their understandings of thedominant value in their society, as well as how it is reflected in their language use interms of directness or indirectness, formality or informality The result confirms theexploitation of directness in American conversations as a manifestation ofindividualism Nevertheless, it also re-questions the popular remark that indirectnessand formality – signs of collectivism are preferred by Vietnamese interlocutors and thesame as European American ones with informality – sign of individualism, as thedependence is on specific situations Finally, some cross-cultural recommendations aregiven with the hope to enhance mutual understandings between two groups of peoplewhen they communicate with one another

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

ABSTRACT………ii

TABLE OF CONTENT……… iii

LIST OF FIGURES……… vi

LIST OF TABLES……… …vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……… ….viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……….1

1 Statement of the research problem and rationale……… 1

2 Research questions……… 2

3 Scope of the study……… 2

4 Significance of the study……….……… 3

5 Research methodology……… …….4

5.1 Data collection method and procedures……….……4

5.2 Data analysis methods and procedures……….….4

6 Organization of the paper……….………4

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND……….6

1 Language and culture……….…….6

2 The concepts of individualism and collectivism………6

2.1 Individualism and collectivism in history….……….6

2.2 Individualism and collectivism in the paper……….……….8

2.3 Interpretations of individualism and collectivism from the perspectives of American and Vietnamese cultures and languages………10

2.3.1 Individualism in American culture and language……….……… 10

2.3.2 Collectivism in Vietnamese culture and language………….………… 13

2.3.3 Some reasons to explain the values of individualism and collectivism in American and Vietnamese cultures and languages……….……15

3 Some manifestations of the reflections of individualism and collectivism in

American and Vietnamese verbal communication styles……… ……….…… 16

3.1 Direct and indirect verbal communication styles……… …….….16

3.1.1 Low context and high context communication………16

3.1.2 Directness and indirectness……….….17

3.2 Informal and formal communication styles……… …… 19

4 Speech acts of request, complement and complaint……….………… 21

4.1 Requesting………21

4.2 Complementing……… … 21

4.3 Complaining……….……22

5 Summary of previous studies……….22

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…….……….23

1 Research design……… 23

2 Data collection method……….… 23

3 Discussion of the survey questionnaire content……….24

4 Informants and data collection procedures……….…… 25

5 Data analysis methods and procedures……….…….…26

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION……… ……….27

1 The concepts of individualism and collectivism……….… 27

2 Manifestation of individualism and collectivism in verbal communication styles……… …31

2.1 Directness and indirectness……… ………… 31

2.1.1 In the English survey questionnaire……… ……… 31

2.1.1.1 In requesting……….……31

2.1.1.2 In complimenting……… …… 32

2.1.1.3 In complaining……… ……… 32

2.1.2 In the Vietnamese questionnaire……….……….33

2.1.2.1 In requesting……… ……….……….….33

2.1.2.2 In complimenting……….……… ….….33

2.1.2.3 In complaining……….……… ….….33

2.1.3 Similarities and differences……….…….34

2.2 Informality and formality……… 35

2.2.1 In the English survey questionnaire………… ……….… 35

2.2.1.1 In requesting……… …….….35

2.2.1.2 In complimenting……….… ……….….36

2.2.1.3 In complaining……….…… ………… 36

2.2.2 In the Vietnamese survey questionnaire……… ……….….36

2.2.2.1 In requesting……….……… …….……36

2.2.2.2 In complimenting……….……….…….….….37

2.2.2.3 In complaining……….……….…….….….37

2.2.3 Similarities and differences……… ……….…….38

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION……… ….…39

1 Summary of the findings and concluding remarks……….……… ….39

2 Recommendations for cross-cultural communication……….……… 39

2.1 Directness and indirectness in American English and Vietnamese….…….… 39

2.2 Formality and informality in American English and Vietnamese…….……….40

3 Limitations of the study……….40

4 Suggestions for further study……….41

REFERENCE LIST……….… 42

APPENDICE………46

Questionnaire (English version)……….……….… ….46

Questionnaire (Vietnamese version)……….……….……48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Percentage of dominant value in America……….… … 27 Figure 2: Defined characteristics of individualism in American culture……….….…28 Figure 3: Percentage of dominant value in Vietnam……….29 Figure 4: Defined characteristics of collectivism in Vietnamese culture………….…30

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

C: Collectivism

D: Directness

DCT: Discourse completion task

EFL: English as a foreign language

F: Formality

I: Individualism

ID: Indirectness

IF: Informality

1. Statement of the research problem and rationale

It is well established that Hofstede’s (1983) pioneering research which mapped

53 countries on four cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism-collectivism,masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance) has “inspired a great deal ofresearch on related fields” (Singer & Voronov 2002, p 461) The dimension ofindividualism-collectivism has become, as some scholars fear, a “catchall defaultexplanation for cultural differences in human behavior” (Kagitcibasi 1997, p 3).Indeed, the constructs of individualism and collectivism were largely responsible forthe explosion of cross-cultural psychology over the past three decades and continued to

be theoretically and empirically the most prominent constructs in cross-culturalpsychology in the 1990s (Kashima et al 1995, p 925) Triandis (1988, p 60) evenregarded individualism-collectivism as “the most important dimension of culturaldifferences in social behavior” What is more, Vandello and Cohen (1999, p 279)concurred that “one of the most useful and actively researched constructs to emergefrom cultural social psychology has been the dimension of individualism-collectivism”

In Vietnam, the economic open-door policy pursued by the Government hasincreased the demand for English-speaking people who are expected to acquire bothlinguistic competence and sociocultural one to access the outside world, as it is

acknowledgeable about the significant interrelation between language and culture that

“to know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluentfool of one’s self” (cited in Nguyen n.d, p 38) Nonetheless, no matter how growingand special the need for cross-cultural/ intercultural communication is, the sad fact isthere are only a small number of Vietnamese EFL (English as a foreign language)speakers who have a good command of cultural awareness and understandings,accompanied by the target language With the hope of contributing to a betterunderstanding of American culture whose individualistic index ranks the first(Hofstede 1980) and Vietnam – a prominently collectivistic society, as well as theirdeep reflections on verbal communication styles in the two languages, the researcher

attempted to investigate into the topic “The reflections of individualism and collectivism on verbal communication styles in American English and Vietnamese”.

2. Research questions

The study was done with an aim to answering the two following questions:(1) To what extent are the values of individualism and collectivismunderstood by American and Vietnamese people?

(2) How are the values of individualism and collectivism reflected in verbalcommunication styles in American and Vietnamese cultures?

3. Scope of the study

Firstly, the values of individualism and collectivism have wide effects on manyaspects of life In this study, however, the focuses are just on their influences on verballanguage use in the light of directness and indirectness, informality and formality inAmerican English and Vietnamese

Secondly, language carries with it a broad realm of reflection, thus in this paper,the author attempts to investigate the manifestation of the dimension individualism-collectivism via three communicative acts, which happen popularly in the people’s

daily lives They are requesting, complaining and complimenting In other words, thepurpose is to find out how the speakers in each country response in supposedlyinteractive situations in terms of directness and indirectness, informality and formality

Thirdly, there are many groups of Americans coming from different parts of theworld as America has been a nation of immigrants for a long time However, theresearch only pays attention to the Americans who have their origins in Europe in order

to ensure the nativeness and representativeness of the findings

Lastly, due to the limited time and resources, the samples of the study wererestricted to 20 European Americans in selected city areas in the United States and 20Vietnamese people living in the city of Hanoi, all of whom are students from the age of

20 to 24 This choice of samples helps ensure the homogeneity in their contexts ofliving and mature thoughts in the answers, thus, generates comparable findings

4. Significance of the study

This research would be of benefits for a number of European Americans inAmerica and EFL speakers in Vietnam, as well as the researchers who are interested inthe same field

In detail, the researcher hopes that by understanding the natures of direct –indirect and informal – formal communication styles as seen from the values ofindividualism and collectivism, Vietnamese EFL speakers will better their performancewhen communicating with European Americans and vice versa Cross-cultural/intercultural communication breakdowns, therefore, would be reduced to the least

Besides, with regards to researchers who share the same interest in the topic,they could rely on this paper to find reliable and helpful information to develop theirrelated studies in the future

5. Research methodology

5.1. Data collection methods and procedures

Questionnaires in form of Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) were employedduring the process of data collection Specifically, there were two language versions ofthe questionnaires, one in English and the other in Vietnamese The Englishquestionnaires were delivered to the informants in selected city areas including Boston,San Francisco, Stockton in California and Maryville, Kansas in Missouri, USAwhereas the Vietnamese questionnaires were for the ones living in the city of Hanoi, all

of whom are students from the age of 20 to 24 Twenty questionnaires with answersfrom each country were then chosen to the data analysis process

5.2. Data analysis methods and procedures

The information collected from two language versions of questionnaires, wastranscribed as the primary source of data for the research Relevant sections wereidentified or underlined during the evaluation of each piece of data The contents were

to be sorted into categories based on the two research questions

6. Organization of the paper

The rest of the paper includes the following chapters:

Chapter 2 (Theoretical background) provides the theoretical background of thestudy, including discussions of the key concepts and summary of previous studies

Chapter 3 (Methodology) describes the research setting, participants, theinstrument of data collection as well as the procedure employed to carry out dataanalysis

Chapter 4 (Findings and discussion) presents, analyzes and discusses the resultsthat the researcher found out from the collected data according to the two researchquestions

Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarizes the answers to the two research questions,several cross-cultural communication recommendations concerning the research topic,the limitations of the research as well as some suggestions for further studies.Following this chapter are the References and Appendices

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This second chapter sheds light on key concepts in the study Afterwards, a brief review of the related studies will reveal the research gaps and hence lays the concrete foundation for this research paper.

1. Language and culture

According to Longman learner’s dictionary (2005), language is “a system ofsounds, words, patterns, etc used by humans to communicate thoughts and feelings”.Indeed, it is “used to give factual information, supply the information about thespeaker’s feelings or serve to establish and maintain social relations between people”.(Dao & Do 2005, p 7) From those views, it can be seen that language and culture areinterwoven in such a way that culture affects expressions of language and language isfilled with cultural factors

2. The concepts of individualism and collectivism

2.1 Individualism and collectivism in history

In the Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol 3 Social behavior andapplications, p 6, Kagitcibasi et al exhibited a collection of definitions onindividualism and collectivism over the years, which was adapted and chronologicallyrearranged as follows:

competitiveness; aggressivecreativity; conformity;

insecurity; large military

Low emotionality; seekinggroup protection; notinterested in competition;low in creativity

spending; prejudice towarddifferent racial and religiousgroups; unrealisticinterpersonal

Emphasis on (a) the views,needs, and goals of the(in)group; (b) social normsand duty defined by thegroup rather than pleasureseeking; (c) beliefs sharedwith the groups rather thanbeliefs that separate selffrom group; and (d)readiness to cooperate withthe group

Janzx

(1991)

Human beings as thefundamental “buildingblock” of society “dignity,”

of the individual; individual

as the primary source of

individualism); collectivegoals subsumed underpersonal ones; individualhaving firm boundaries;

“equality” of individuals (atleast in principle); and

“liberty” from interference

of others

Emphasis on the group orcommunity; the group asthe source of value; theinterests of the group takingprecedence over those ofthe individual, with

“commitment” as the moralaspect of ideology;individual not separate fromothers, but inextricablylinked with them orembedded in group;individual freedom

“restricted” by the group

Ho & Chiu

(1994)

Value of individual;

autonomy; individualresponsibility (consequences

of action affect theindividual); individualachievement; self-reliance(individual interests;

security in individual’sstrength)

Value of the group;conformity; collectiveresponsibility

(consequences of actionaffect the whole group);group achievement;interdependence (groupinterests; security in groupsolidarity)

Table 1: Individualism and collectivism over the years (adapted and rearranged

from Kagitcibasi et al 1997)

From the above synthesis, it could be seen that there existed some developments

in terms of the understandings of the two concepts in history First was Hsu’s whichshowed some negative ideas about individualism and collectivism such as “prejudicetoward different racial and religious groups” for the former or “low emotionality” forthe latter This researcher, however, also shared some similarities with the others aboutthe self in individualistic cultures and the spirit of groups in collectivistic ones Later,Triandis (1990), Ho & Chiu (1994) seemed to support relatively the same descriptions

of the two values, mostly about individuals standing on their own (individualism) andresponsibilities towards the groups (collectivism) Prominently, Janzx (1991) gavesome additions to what are termed individualism and collectivism, respectively were

“building block of society dignity, equality, liberty” and group “commitment as themoral aspect of ideology, individual freedom restricted by the group”

2.2 Individualism and collectivism in the paper

In this paper, the definitions of individualism and collectivism given byHofstede (1991) were employed According to him, “Individualism stands for a society

in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look afterhimself or herself and his or her immediate family only,” and “collectivism stands for asociety in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesiveingroups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange forunquestioning loyalty” (p 260-261) These characterizations involve both interpersonaland normative aspects of individualism and collectivism.

In an individualistic society, emphasis is put on the goals and accomplishments

of the individual When conflicts arise over the benefits, one tends to set priority tohis/her own purposes instead of other members’ in the community (Singelis et al 1995)

In addition, independence from family as well as social and religious organizations iscommonly recognized; thus, privacy and the “self” are emphasized (Triandis 1995) As

a matter of fact, all the decisions are made from personal perspectives and forindividual sake without any concern about the groups Personal values include personaltime, freedom, and challenge (Würtz 2005)

On the contrary, collectivistic cultures where solidarity, responsibility andmutual help among members are always highly recommended prioritize group welfareover the goals of the individual The family's history often has an influence on the waypeople see an individual whereas personal accomplishments play a minor role Whenthe “we” outweigh the “I”, individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to beinterdependent with others and will usually have built a network of deep-rootedrelationships and personal, loyal ties (Triandis 1995) Lustig and Koetes (2010) alsoshared the same opinion that in collectivistic cultures, groups are considered people’sextended families and require them absolute loyalty Besides, people appear to have

“in-group egoism” (Hofstede 1994) that they try to protect the benefits of their owngroup’s members rather than those of other groups Values in collectivistic culturesinclude training, physical condition, and the use of skills (Würtz 2005)

According to Singelis et al (1995), Western modern industrial societies such asAmerica or Canada encourage individualism whereas Asian countries, Latin Americaand Africa with tradition agricultural cultures prefer collectivism.

2.3 Interpretations of individualism and collectivism from the

perspectives of American and Vietnamese cultures and languages

In this part, the researcher attempts to give evidences and explanations about themanifestation of individualism and collectivism in American and Vietnamese cultures,together with their corresponding language uses As reported by Hofstede (1983),America with 91 scores is classified into a group of the most individualistic countries

in the world Meanwhile, Vietnam (-97) belongs to a group with the lowestindividualism index value scores, ranking only above Indonesia and Pakistan (-122) inthe South (East) Asia

2.3.1 Individualism in American culture and language

The word “individualism” is often used by scholars and outside observers butmany Americans prefer to call it “individual freedom”, meaning “a climate of freedomwhere the emphasis is on the individual” Individual freedom is probably the mostbasic of all the American values and the word “freedom” is perhaps one of the mostrespected popular words in the United States today (Hoang et al 2005, p 73)

American individualism takes its special place right in the country’s Declaration

of Independence (Jefferson 1776):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they areendowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life,liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Bellah et al (1985, cited in Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol 3)wrote about American individualism:

self-reliance, independence and separation from family, religion and community;hedonism, utilitarianism, and emphasis on exchange; competition; equity and fairness

in the distribution of rewards; trust in others; emphasis on competence; involvement incommunity life (getting something in return); equality of people and the rejection ofarbitrary authority; the self as the only source of reality

In his book American ways (1988, p 8), Gary Althen emphasized Bellah’s verylast description and considered “devotion to individualism” as “the most importantthing to understand about Americans” He also added that “they are not trained to seethemselves as members of a close-knit, interdependent family, religious group, tribe,nation or any other collectivity” In fact, people are effectively taught about their selfvalues, the responsibility for their own situations in life and their own destinies fromchildhood Dr Benjamin Spock stated in his book which most of the American parentsrefer to when raising their children that “We are raising them to be ruggedindividualists” (1968, p 7, cited in American ways by Gary Althen 1988) ToAmericans, any social factor outside themselves that makes them just like everyoneelse in important ways can offend their “sense of dignity” (Althen 1988, p.10) As amatter of fact, every individual is equal in terms of biological and social aspects.Therefore, each one deserves the opportunity to prove their abilities for others torecognize Interestingly, with his profound knowledge and keen sense of observation,Gary Althen (1988) further compares “a Walkman dance” at a major university with

“epitomized American individualism” (p 11), meaning that students assemble in alarge room where they all dance alone to whatever music they are playing on their ownWalkman

It is an undeniable fact that American individual freedom is what no authoritycan interfere In the classroom, students are strongly recommended to give their ownopinions and ask questions In public, freedom of speech is widely welcome However,there is a price for this: individuals must learn to rely on themselves or risk losingfreedom De Tocqueville observed the Americans’ belief in self-reliance nearly 200years ago in the 1930s:

They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire thehabit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imaginethat their whole destiny is in their own hands.

(cited in Introduction to American Studies, Hoang et al 2005, p 74)

The illustration of individual freedom and self-reliance in American English can

be “free to make up your own mind”; “you made your bed, now lie in it”.

Also closely associated with the value they place on individualism is the

importance Americans assign to privacy and equality “What are you doing?/ Where

are you going? – None of your business” or “One man, one vote” are some of their

manifestations in language In reality, personal possessions are highly protected frominvasion and most Americans have great difficulty understanding people who alwayswant to be with another person, who dislike being alone since it shows weakness anddependence Additionally, the equality can be seen from the way Americans addresseach other informally that they tend to use first name even with an elder person or theirprofessor/ boss except for some special formal situations An example can be asfollows:

“Good morning, professor Jeff Mayor! My name is Katherine Boyle.

Hi Katherine! Just call me Jeff!”

Such way of addressing suggests that every individual is expected to be treatedequally no matter how old they are and what position they are in at work or in a family

Another evidence of individualism in American culture is directness With theiracknowledgement of personal identity, as well as respecting others’, Americans believethat they should be direct, frank and open in their dealings with other people This isconsidered the standard social norms in citizens’ behaviors and those who possess thequalities are highly respected They usually assume that conflicts or disagreements are

best settled by means of forthright discussions among the people involved, or else, theact of speaking indirectly is somewhat cowardly Examples of sayings to illustrate this

fact are: “Let’s lay our cards on the table”; “Let’s stop playing games and get to the

point” However, further elaboration on this point is delayed to another part of the

paper

2.3.2 Collectivism in Vietnamese culture and language

In Vietnamese culture where humanism, community and an agriculturally basedeconomy are the main features, collectivism is popular People usually make greatefforts to create and maintain harmonious relationships even though this may cost them

to take some steps backwards:

Một con ngựa đau cả tàu bỏ cỏ

(When a horse is sick, its whole pack will not eat)

Huu Dat (2000) added that in an agricultural-originated culture with strongfamily bonds like Vietnam, social relations and their tight rules formulate personalbehaviors Indeed, the Vietnamese consider the ties with family, relatives and neighborsthe closest and most direct interrelationship Hence, community value requiring them

to sacrifice their private interests for the sake of the entire community and groupharmony is far more preferable than individualism in American culture It is thenational community sense that creates a special, original and intimate cultural identitywhich surprises any foreign visitor to the country

A Vietnamese culture researcher – Tran Ngoc Them (2008) interpretedcollectivism in Vietnamese culture as the manifestation of hierarchy and order, as well

as the interlocutor sense of honor and tactfulness Firstly, Vietnamese people are aware

of their surrounding relations Consequently, everything said should be suitable to the

specific situations and to whom they are talking; whether there is consistency inbehaving and the communicator is in a higher position or lower Some proverbs thatillustrate this fact are:

Có trên có dưới (Before doing anything, consider your position in comparison with others)

Kính trên nhường dưới (Show respect with the elderly, show tenderness with the young)

Ăn trông nồi ngồi trông hướng

(Sometimes take a look into the rice pot when you are eating and choose the right direction for your sitting)

The way Vietnamese people address also reflects the characteristic There is asystem of titles that shows the hierarchical reflection that everyone should strictlyadapt in each situation, for example, to whom he/she is talking, the senior or junior interms of age, social or physical power and relationship

Collectivism in Vietnamese culture also has its mark in the way that theVietnamese people are frequently not as direct as the European Americans Thetradition of showing concerns and saving the communicative partners’ face keeps thembeing indirect as a sign of politeness Historically, as living in communities, theVietnamese people valued the mutual help and concerns among the member in theirown and later expanded them to the bigger society Thus, small talks, for example,about the communicative partners’ family, work, health, age and marital status seem to

be regarded as the standard ways of starting the conversation and developing furtherpurposes

2.3.3 Some reasons to explain the values of individualism and collectivism

in American and Vietnamese cultures and languages

Pham (2006) explained the existence of individualism in American society thatthe salad bowl culture with the exodus of immigrants from all walks of life and ofdifferent races brings about unquenchable desire for Americans to express oneself Onone hand, to live in harmony with the others, each person needs to conform tocommunity regulations On the other hand, he/she cherishes his/her identity, showsrespects for others’ cultures or individual interests and aspirations Hence, Americanindividualism is considered as the suitable way to sustain a heterogeneous society Inaddition, the years of long-standing struggles for national success in overthrowingBritish monarchical rule and gaining independence have taught people of the USA that

in order to make the USA flourish, there is no better way than to be self-reliant Libertyand above all, individualism enables them to exploit their potentials to the fullest

About collectivism in Vietnam, it can be explained by the influence of anagricultural society and Confucianism In the past, the country’s economy largelydepended on agriculture, which in fact needed people to cooperate well to earn theirliving (Tran 2008) They had to work with each other on the fields, share theirexperiences about weather forecast and rice growing These fostered close relationsamong people in the community and nowadays, the closeness has been remained andcreated what is termed as collectivism Next, Kim (1995) suggested that a countrygreatly influenced by Confucianism like Vietnam appears to favor group prosperity andharmony, which again, lead to collectivism

Nonetheless, it is noted that American individualism and Vietnamesecollectivism being discussed in this paper have relative meanings only because there is

no absolute individualism in America, nor absolute collectivism in Vietnam As amatter of fact, the values of individualism and collectivism exist in both societies,ranging from situations to situations, regions to regions However, it is widelyrecognized that in America, individualism is far more dominant than collectivism andvice versa in Vietnam

3. Some manifestations of the reflections of individualism and collectivism in American and Vietnamese verbal communication styles.

3.1. Direct and indirect verbal communication styles

3.1.1. Low context and high context communication

First and foremost, the reflections of individualism and collectivism ondirectness and indirectness communication styles are related to Hall’s concepts (1970)including “high context” and “low context” communication “High-context” refers to aculture where internal meaning is usually embedded deep in the information and thelistener is expected to be able to read between the lines to understand the unsaid,thanks to his/her background knowledge Therefore, communication is, according toGudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988, p 35), indirect, ambiguous, harmonious, reservedand understated The authors also added that the primary purpose of communication inhigh context is to form and develop relationships

On the contrary, a “low context” culture is where the messages are deliveredexplicitly through the language; thus, communication is direct, precise, dramatic, openand based on feelings or true intentions (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey 1988, p 36) Theprimary purpose of communication here is the exchange of information, facts andopinions In fact, as said by Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988, p 40) low-contextcommunication is popular in individualistic societies, whereas high-contextcommunication is preferred in collectivistic societies

Hall (1970) also claims that high and low context are not a dichotomy, but rathertwo poles of a continuum and on this continuum, America is placed towards the “low”end Communication in the country is defined as the low-context one in which thespeaker expresses his/her intention in explicit ways, the listener is able to interpret theverbal message quite directly and clearly and “in which mass of the information isvested in the explicit code” (Hofstede 1991, p 79) American interlocutors aresupposed to get the point straightforward without taking pains to figure out the context.They respond to others more on the basis of personal characteristics and situationalneed, less on the basis of group affiliation This typical American low-contextcommunication is partly assigned to its own individualism and that emphasizes the idea

to speak one’s mind along with the personal goal: “low context people expectthemselves and others to be self-reliant, low context cultures are ego-oriented orindividualist” (Cornelius & Willa 1999, p 2)

On the other hand, Vietnam is among the collective cultures “where most of theinformation is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while verylittle in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (Hofstede 1991, p 79).Speaker and listener are involved in a specific context and this is the clue to understandtheir conversation

3.1.2. Directness and indirectness

Indeed, individualism and collectivism are clearly reflected in the way peopleexpress themselves directly or indirectly With the purpose of asserting personalidentity, those from individualistic countries prefer directness in communication whilethose from collectivistic nations are in favor of the opposite tendency Mentioningabout the American in particular, Levine and Adelman concluded that “compared withother languages, American English strongly emphasize directness in verbal interaction”

(1982, p 20) Many expressions in English reinforce this argument including: “Let’s

get down to the business”, “Out with it”, etc To European American, directness

implies honesty and being honest is usually “more important than preserving harmony

in interpersonal relationships” (Althen 1988, p.30) The belief that “honesty is the bestpolicy” is commonly found and reflected in the way they communicate A typicalexample of directness in verbal communication is given by Levine and Adelman (1982,

p 21):

Host: Would you like some dessert?

Guest: No, thank It’s delicious but I’ve really had enough.

Host: Ok, why don’t we leave the table and sit in the living room?

In this situation, the host takes it for granted that the guest is honest and does notrepeat his offer If the guest is still hungry, he is expected to say directly “Yes, I’d likesome more Thank you!” In Vietnam, on the contrary, the guest tends to refuse wheninvited to eat something for several times even though he may still be hungry Onlywhen being insisted may the guest accept the invitation to eat more

Another example of the Vietnamese indirect way is:

“Xin các ông bác bà thương mẹ con cháu với Cháu quê tận Nghệ An đưa con ra đây chữa bệnh Ra đến bến xe Giáp Bát, cháu bị kẻ gian móc hết tiền bạc Hai mẹ con cháu không có ai thân thích ở đây, từ hôm qua đến nay chưa được ăn gì Các ông bà thương tình đỡ cháu ít tiền về quê, cháu xin đội ơn ông bà suốt đời.” (Beg you, please feel compassion for me and my child We come from Nghe An province I bring my child here to cure his disease On my arrival at Giap Bat station, all my money was stolen I and my child have no relatives here and have had nothing to eat from yesterday It would be very kind of you to give us some money to come back home.

I would be deeply grateful all my life).

(Phuong, p 33)

A way of asking for money in Vietnamese culture, following Kaplan’s diagram

It can be seen that the speaker employs a lot of lead-in structures beforeextending the main purpose because in the Vietnamese communication style, usinglead-in explanation before stating a request rather than not, sounds more moving andpersuasive By that small talk, much affection and sympathy from listeners can beprovoked; thus, the request sounds reasonable and easier to be accepted By that way,they can still remain good relationships – the essence in a collectivistic community, andget their ideas across Conversely, for the European American people, who are wellknown for being direct and self-assertive “judge members of cultural groups that valueindirectness as not being assertive enough” (Levine & Adelman 1993, p 70), suchroundabout can be regarded as lengthy and irritating, especially when the time islimited and listeners are in bad mood

3.2. Informal and formal communication styles

Her home town

Formality and informality are the signs of individualism and collectivism inlanguage use These can be observed through the use of address forms, formal wordsand structures, honorifics and more lead-in expressions to express deference for theseniors

According to Gudyskunst (1983), a person-oriented language stressesinformality and symmetrical power relationships Members of individualistic, low-context cultures tend to see every individual as equal, which results in egalitarianism incommunication He also noted that Americans, who mostly seem to be mostindividualistic in the world, are conscious about equalizing their language and theirinterpersonal relations Differences of age, status and sex are no reasons to usedifferent language styles This can help explain why Americans are inclined to use

more first-name basis and less formal title such as mate, buddy, pal, honey, babe, dear,

cutie, blondie, etc in daily conversations, as well as the power distance among people

is not well perceived In fact, the use of jargon or slang: “Lend us two bucks”,

contraction and ellipsis: “Mind if I smoke?”/ “Got any spare cash”/ “How about a

drink?” is extremely popular.

On the other hand, members of collective, high-context cultures includingVietnam pay great attention to their roles in conversation, depending on their status,ages and sexes The interlocutors then will vary the degrees of intimacy experiencingthe differences in the use of language This type of communication style is heavilybased on hierarchical social order and rather a role-centered language which lay stress

on formality, asymmetrical power relationships (Gudyskunst & Ting-Toomey 1983)

A typical example to illustrate the Vietnamese formal communication styles andAmerican informal one is the system of addressing While the Vietnamese languagehas distinct various ways of addressing, for instance, a child will call his mother

honorably “mother + name”, or his teacher “miss + name”; the Americans use “you”

and “I” in most of the situations, or just resort to the first name “mother’s name” or

“teacher’s name” without any title

4. Speech acts of request, complement and complaint

Yule (1996) defined speech acts in general as “actions performed via utterances”(p 47) Depending on the speaker’s communicative function in producing an utterance,specific kinds of speech acts are named, for example, apology, invitation, promise, etc.Following are definitions of the three speech acts employed in this study

4.1. Requesting

According to Trosborg (1995), as cited in Beltran (2002, p 199), a requestconsists of an illocutionary act in which the speaker asks the hearer to perform anaction for the benefit of the speaker As this includes the possibility to threaten thehearer’s expectations regarding his/her self-image, this speech act has been considered

“one of the most face threatening speech acts” (Brown & Levinson 1987, cited in

Beltran 2002, p 200) Some examples are: “Could you please open the window?” or

“Help me clean the floor!”

4.2. Complimenting

Holmes (1988, p 485) described a compliment as “a speech act which explicitly

or implicitly attributes credit to someone other than the speaker, usually the personaddressed, for some ‘good’ (possession, characteristic, skill, etc.) which is positivelyvalued by the speaker and the hearer” Olshtain and Cohen, as cited in Kim (2005),added that “the speech act of complimenting is intrinsically courteous and enables the